W06 Mini-Challenges Utah Faults
Tyson Brost - 2/16/2024
Mini-Challenge 1:
Map:
Methods Table:
| Geoprocessing tool and data I used | Why I used this tool? | What it did (consider both the map and the attribute table) |
| Utah counties and Utah faults, Spatial join, | Joined the data in the faults onto the counties so I could see in one layer which counties had a fault present | Created a new att table with data from counties joined to each fault segment. |
Note: I could have used select by att and then exported the features after the join to a new feature class as outlined in the prompt but it was simpler to display the counties with and without a fault when they are still both in one class
Mini-Challenge 2:
Map:
Methods Table:
| Geoprocessing tool and data I used | Why I used this tool? | What it did (consider both the map and the attribute table) |
| I used the Ut Faults layer and the calculate geometry tool. | Allows conversion of one geometric measurement to another unit. | No changes to the map, new column added to attribute table. |
Mini-Challenge 3:
Map:
Methods Table:
| Geoprocessing tool and data I used | Why I used this tool? | What it did (consider both the map and the attribute table) |
| Used the dissolve tool on my calculated geometry layer from MC 2. | Combines disparate features of one group into one whole with summarized values. | Created a new layer & att table that was grouped by fault name with lengths summarized to their total. |
Mini-Challenge 4:
Map:
Methods Table:
| Geoprocessing tool and data I used | Why I used this tool? | What it did (consider both the map and the attribute table) |
| Select by attribute, export features | Allowed me to select all fault sections whose name contained ‘wasatch’ anywhere and then export them to a seperate feature class. | Created a new feature class & att table with only the selected objects. |
Mini-Challenge 5 (a/b):
Part A
Map:
Methods Table:
| Geoprocessing tool and data I used | Why I used this tool? | What it did (consider both the map and the attribute table) |
| I used the calculated geometry layer from MC2 and spatially joined that to UT counties. Then conducted a summarize within on the joined layer. | Connect fault lengths to county polygons, then summarize the values of fault data within each county. | Created a new feature class with only 1 row for each county with summarized total fault lengths in a new column. |
Which county has the greatest seismic risk based on sum of the fault lengths? Millard
Part B
Map:
Methods Table:
| Geoprocessing tool and data I used | Why I used this tool? | What it did (consider both the map and the attribute table) |
| I used the aforementioned summarizeWithin layer and then used the calculate field tool to create a new column with the outlined formula. | Allows creation of a new field based on a formula and/or existing fields. | Created a new column in the attribute table. |
Mini-Challenge 6:
Map:
Methods Table:
| Geoprocessing tool and data I used | Why I used this tool? | What it did (consider both the map and the attribute table) |
| Merge | Allows merging spatially separate but attribute equal data sources. | Created a new feature class with the same columns as the originals but with a total length of each original appended to the others. |
Mini-Challenge 7:
Map:
Methods Table:
| Geoprocessing tool and data I used | Why I used this tool? | What it did (consider both the map and the attribute table) |
| Wasatch fault from previous MC, Buffer tool | Allows creation of a new polygon centered around an existing layer with a specified ‘width’. | Created a new attribute table for each buffer level. Added a feature layer of a polygon to the map |
Mini-Challenge 8:
Map:
Methods Table:
| Geoprocessing tool and data I used | Why I used this tool? | What it did (consider both the map and the attribute table) |
| Intersect on wasatch fault layer and my 5 mile buffer layer | Remove data from one layer where it does not overlap with another layer. | Created a new class and att table containing only the points from the schools class that do sit inside of the buffer class. |
Mini-Challenge 9:
Map:
Methods Table:
| Geoprocessing tool and data I used | Why I used this tool? | What it did (consider both the map and the attribute table) |
| Erase on my wasatch and 5 Mile buffer layer | Remove data from one layer where it overlaps with another layer. | Created a new class and att table containing only the points from the schools class that dont sit inside of the buffer class. |
Mini-Challenge 10:
Map:
Methods Table:
| Geoprocessing tool and data I used | Why I used this tool? | What it did (consider both the map and the attribute table) |
| Intersect on liquefaction and utah schools layer | Both joins the liquefaction attribute fields to schools and filters the schools layer to only those which we have liquefaction data for. | Filtered the schools layer down to only those within the liquefaction layer and joined the attributes of liquefaction polygon to the school points. |
Mini-Challenge 11:
Maps:
Intersect:
Union:
Methods Table:
| Geoprocessing tool and data I used | Why I used this tool? | What it did (consider both the map and the attribute table) |
| Intersect | Join data from multiple polygon layers | Filtered data to only overlapping areas and created new attribute fields on one layer for those on the intersected layer. |
| Union | Join data from multiple polygon layers | Created new polygons for overlapping areas on these layers but maintained the non overlapping sections as well. |
Mini-Challenge 12:
Map:
Methods Table:
| Geoprocessing tool and data I used | Why I used this tool? | What it did (consider both the map and the attribute table) |
| Definition Query - Cultural Resources | Since building codes were applied in 1975 we only want buildings built before this year. | Filtered rows in layer when loading in data layer |
| Intersect - Cultural Resources & Wasatch counties | We only need buildings in the selected counties | Filtered rows in data layer by geography of another layer |
| Merge - All student sourced buildings and the official cultural resources | Some of these points overlap and in the end we need to join the liquefaction potential to all buildings | Appended disparate but similar datasets into 1 combined whole. |
| Intersect - Merged buildings & Liquefaction potential | Select only buildings for which we have earthquake related data in these counties (only lose 1 point in this process, otherwise calculating a county average and applying it to all buildings would be better) | Joined and filtered liquefaction data onto historical site points. |
| Dissolve - intersect from previous step by county and calculate average Pcode as well as count of buildings. | We can use the average Pcode and count of buildings to create a weighted count in the next step | Grouped points by county and provided summary data at the county level |
| Calculate Field x2 | Created a building count field for each county weighted by the average Pcode of a each country. Then using the total of this weighted counts, create a percentage of weighted counts for each county. This weighted percentage should be a good representation of what % of the available funding should be given to a given county based on both the number of historical sites as well as the relative risk they are experiencing. |
Used summary data to create meaningful fields with useful attributes for display and action. |
Salt Lake county should receive the most funding. They have the highest weighted percentage of buildings relative to the counties average Pcode.
Sources:
Include a list of data and their sources.
ESRI Basemap
Source data from class
ESRI data portal